Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has this topic been discussed already? I couldn't find a thread about it.
I'm wondering if self driving cars (or small pods), which can run much closer together and automatically avoid congestion, will lure people away from trains and busses. I know that cost will factor into all of this, but if people have the choice of hopping in a pod and pushing a button to get to work, why would they walk to a bus or train stop and wait for transportation?
This will depend on technology, but I think it would be possible to cram 3 times as many small cars (such as a Smart Car) onto existing roads if they can be controlled to run within a few feet of each other at high speeds. The congestion avoidance programs could spin them off onto other roads if necessary, and automatically find a parking spot or garage closest to the destination.
I probably sound a little looney, and I probably am, but I was thinking about this will riding the Metro into DC the other day. Will mass transit become history?
I could see many self driving pods @ the Train Stations, Generic(Not personaly owned) You get off subway, get into a one or two passenger pod, and off you go.
Lets you off, then goes back to a subway queue, or to a location to pick up some one else.
I see it replacing "Local" buses, but not express buses, or subway/regional rail.
Many users of transit don't drive or have a car, so they will still ride transit.
(Too young, too old, legal problems, vision or disability, too poor, not interested in car ownership)
Add to this, self driving cars will be more expensive than driver cars.
Also, other than special dedicated roadways or lanes (like HOV lanes), self driving cars will share the road with driver cars which will greatly reduce the expected increase in road capacity.
It will probably be used in conjunction with mass transit... after all, mass transit is "self driving" and will always do it cheaper simply because it's cheapest to move a bunch of people in 1 vehicle than a bunch of people in a bunch of vehicles.
It will probably be used in conjunction with mass transit... after all, mass transit is "self driving" and will always do it cheaper simply because it's cheapest to move a bunch of people in 1 vehicle than a bunch of people in a bunch of vehicles.
Nope. Large vehicles are efficient only if full. If mostly empty small vehicles will be much better. Autonomous vehicles can dispatch as needed not to fixed schedules.
Small area mass transit is dead when the autonomous vehicles hit. The Las Vegas strip for instance will be a much better place with the Googlemobile.
Longer haul mass transit may survive but it will also be autonomous. It is the removal of the humans that makes all the money. See elevator operators.
Many users of transit don't drive or have a car, so they will still ride transit.
(Too young, too old, legal problems, vision or disability, too poor, not interested in car ownership)
Add to this, self driving cars will be more expensive than driver cars.
Also, other than special dedicated roadways or lanes (like HOV lanes), self driving cars will share the road with driver cars which will greatly reduce the expected increase in road capacity.
From what I've read, cost is expected to be around $10,000 or so when the first self-driving regular cars become available. It'll be on optional feature on luxury automobiles at first. Stuff like Google's autonomous car is really a separate use of the same technology in something that doesn't look at all like the personal vehicle. It's gone from using a Prius and Lexus SUV to now they have the prototype concept which is radically different than a normal car. Partly it's intentionally neutered in the take baby steps approach, but it's also a reflection of where technology currently is and how Google sees early use which is more like their prototype than a fully functional regular car. The sensors hardware needed for the current prototype (which only does 25 mph) is expected to cost about $5,000 in the next model. The hardware needed for a fully functional car while currently available is still extremely expensive. What you'll see first is more like limited-use Uber/Taxi. But when you consider they won't have wages that cost is really nothing. It has the potential to replace a lot of transit in much of the country although not quiet yet. As far as replacing transit somewhere with congestion, such as major city, absolutely not. That will never happen. In mid-sized cities it could be used like a poster mentioned where you either drive or take a pod-like car from your house to a transit station and then get in another pod-like car at the other end for the last mile. In a major city it would just be a supplement to transit as Taxis and Uber are now. It will never replace transit somewhere like NYC though even for relatively short distances. There's just not the road capacity to do that. Somewhere like San Jose combined with transit it could make a HUGE difference though as right now you have last mile problems that make transit in San Jose not work well for most people so they all drive.
For the average US though which brings down the average bus to only having 8-9 passengers, yes, it largely could replace transit. Not commuter transit and speeds will need to come up from 25 to around 45 mph to be usable most places. It costs $6.80 every time someone boards a bus in Sacramento though, so it's not clear to me that an autonomous pod car couldn't do that more cheaply. UberX already is cost competitive with transit. Sacramento for example it costs $6.80 every time someone boards a bus. After you subtract the $1 fare drop and $1.75 Uber fee, that leaves you $4 and UberX is about $1/mile. Average trip distance in the US for non-commuter buses is right around 4 miles. What you're left with is how do you subsidize that. The taxpayer in Sacramento pays for 80% of the operating costs which is controlled because the quality is bad and it doesn't really cost anything to add a marginal passenger. While autonomous cars aren't anymore expensive if the taxpayer is paying 80% of it, it doesn't have that marginal passenger not adding any cost and the service would be much higher quality. If you had an autonomous car that would come pick you up for $2.50 fare or $100/mo pass like with transit, a lot more people would use that than the bus. Even if it costs less, say $4 instead of $6.80 and provides much better service, the cost would be significant simply because so many more people would use it. You'd really need to go to a needs-based subsidy where only the poor would get a reduced fare and only if their start and end points weren't along one of the maintained bus routes. While it most likely is cheaper than the average bus, particular bus routes with high volume would still be the more economical means of moving people.
That's actually a significant impediment which will probably mean because of rent seeking behavior and inefficiency along with public employee unions there probably won't be any impact at all on transit. We'll stick with the lower quality service that's more expensive because of that more than anything else. It'll only indirectly hurt transit because for some people paying 100% of the cost for something better is more attractive than paying 20% of the cost of something worse leading to lower ridership.
I don't believe one minute that driver less cars will solve traffic congestion problems. In the short term, perhaps it will be like adding a lane to a highway, but eventually that capacity would be used up. The one benefit of driverless cars should be less accidents, so at least that unpredictable source of congestion can be eventually addressed.
Driverless busses have a huge potential to improve public transportation, though these will likely be smaller vehicles than what we currently run. It will also open up smaller, even rural, towns to public transportation options, though this service may resemble Uber more than a bus. Wouldn't be surprised if driverless cars can eventually take us between cities, especially for college towns that are distant from the nearest major airport.
UberX already is cost competitive with transit. Sacramento for example it costs $6.80 every time someone boards a bus. After you subtract the $1 fare drop and $1.75 Uber fee, that leaves you $4 and UberX is about $1/mile. Average trip distance in the US for non-commuter buses is right around 4 miles. What you're left with is how do you subsidize that.
But in large part this is because Uber doesn't have the same insurance standards as public busses do. Also, the cost of the driver is greatly reduced by using the "private contractor" model which public busses do not. The cost is just as much a function of liability and regulation as it is the cost of the actual service.
A significant portion of that bus boarding expense is the driver, which can be eliminated with a driverless bus system. China has already implemented this, so it may actually happen faster than the large-scale adoption of driverless private owned cars in the city.
One of the benefits of mass transit is the low cost of using it compared to driving a car.
Self-driving cars won't do anything to address the high costs of car ownership.
If anything driverless cars will be even more expensive to own and operate in terms of initial costs of buying it and higher operating costs. You're going to be paying thousands of dollars more upfront for the driverless car and your operating costs will be higher as well. Having much greater mechanical complexity than conventional vehicles means things are going to break down more often and when they do the costs of repairs and maintenance won't be cheap.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
I can't imagine why anyone would spend $20-30,000 plus insurance and maintenance for a self driving car when for $2 they could take a bus. The only reason for driving rather than taking a bus is the fun of driving, or inconvenient schedules. Some people with odd hours may buy them, but many others will jump on the bus to avoid having their nice cars damaged by the faulty and/or hacked self drivers running around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
